THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

The Viganò case, the Church,
faith and the media


On the occasion of the publication of my book Il caso Viganò by Fede & Cultura, Alessandro Gnocchi interviewed me for Riscossa Cristiana.
Here is the transcript of our dialog, which I reprint here with Gnocchi’s kind permission.

The Viganò case recounted
in a book by Aldo Maria Valli
A conversation with the author
by Alessandro Gnocchi
October 17, 2018



In general, publishers turn up their noses when they get a proposal to publish a collection of articles and essays already published in newspapers and magazines. They often are right about this. And I do not know if Giovanni Zenone of Fede & Cultura did that when Aldo Maria Valli told him he wanted to put together in a book what he has written so far about the revelations of Mons. Vigano on the Vatican cover-up for sexual abuses committed by now ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in particular. But here we have right off the presses
Il caso Viganò. Il dossier che ha svelato il più grande scandalo all’interno della Chiesa by Aldo Maria Valli, from Fede & Cultura.

It is not a simple collection of articles published since August 26, 2018, to a few days ago, on a story that has been headlinewnews for almost two months now, but it is a part of the history of the Church which no historian can ignore from hereon.

It is also a narrative written by a Christian who can and should be read by every Christian, more than by historians, because it has a rare quality: it was written out of love for the truth, with all the difficulties that comes with this. And this is what I wished to speak to Valli about, not just about the book but about the author himself.

Let’s begin with the abc’s of our profession – checking our sources. You have written about your meeting with Mons Vigano before his first letter was published. I would like to know what your journalistic instinct told you immediately and what you did when you found yourself with his manuscript in your hands.
More than a journalistic instinct, I would speak of simple human instinct. By nature, I tend to trust other persons, but I think I also have a certain ‘sense’ that allows me to recognize evil, malice and lies. I will tell you that when I sense the presence of evil, I get a very physical reaction, in which case, what do I do? I simply escape. I leave, I distance myself from someone I sense to be a source of evil. I could recount many such episodes but that would be too long.

In the case of Mons. Vigano, on the contrary, I immediately sensed in him the weight of truth. See, the ex-nuncio is not an easy character, in that he does not ‘know’ how to show empathy, as one would say today. He did nothing whatsoever to ingratiate himself with me. But I was struck by his obvious suffering and fear of God – which is rare to see today, even among prelates.

He did not decide to speak, as some have insinuated, out of revenge and bitterness that he failed to be named a cardinal. He said, “I am old now, and nearing death. I don’t care about the judgment of men, only that of the Father. And when the Father asks me what I have done for the Church, I would like to be able to tell him that I did all I could, in my own way, to save her.”

No, I didn’t see in him a resentful man, but a servant of the Church who is suffering, I would even say prostrate with suffering. And since, when he came to see me, I too was in a similar condition, it was as if we recognized a common prostration we were experiencing.

Then, when he first handed me his first Testimony, he wanted me to read it right away, in his presence, so that I could immediately ask him questions and express any doubts and perplexities. He placed himself entirely at my disposition, and obviously, I did not lack for questions. About dates, names, circumstances. I think I subjected him to an authentic ‘interrogation’, but he did not draw back, not for an instant, nor did he ever seem confused or self-contradictory. Of course, on some points, he answered, “I don’t remember”.

Besides, as I have already narrated elsewhere, I had wanted our first two meetings to take place in my home, in the presence of my wife and children, because I wanted to meet him among people I love and who share my sensibilities in many ways. I must say that all of us had the same impression: Here was a man who spoke about his death, the judgment of God, of eternal life – a man profoundly saddened not for himself but for the state of the Church.

I remember that when he left us the first time, I said to my wife: “Think what he must be experiencing at this time. He had dedicated all his life to the Church. Someone like him, who having been trained for the Vatican diplomatic service, would have a special attachment to the popes. [Nuncios are the pope’s personal representatives in the country to which they are assigned.] The spirit of abnegation in such a man is total. Well, if a man like him, with his formation, has decided to disclose what he knowsn, it means that he is really impelled by extremely serious reasons.

Could you give us a brief portrait of Mons Vigano to make the readers understand why you decided to believe him, to publish his tesitimony, and continue to support him.
I already said something earlier. I would add that he is capable of being an authentic administrator and manager when he has to. With an additional touch – a concern for duty that is a typical quality of us Lombardians (he is from Varese, I am from Rho near Milan), so he takes any task assigned to him with extraordinary seriousness.

When he was assgned to be the Secretary of the Vatican Governatorate [i.e., the actual day-to-day administrator], he made everyone jump out of their seats. He insisted on checking put everything, looking into contracts, collaborations, bills. And when he found out about bad practices and any monkey business, he immediately took action, without worrying about timing or fear of stepping on others’ feet. In the process, he made a lot of enemies.

If you ask them at the Governatorate, they still remember that not even a pin could be acquired unless Vigano verified there was a real need for it and without considering various bids offered. When he learned that big contract jobs were assigned to ‘friends’ of those in high places without asking for other bids, he was dismayed but he simply changed the rules. In these ways, he was able to save a lot of money for the Vatican. In the USA, he behaved in the same way, employing his gifts both as a diplomat and as an administrator.

I smile at those who say, “But at a public encounter with McCarrick, he said nothing against him, and greeted him cordially”. Those who say that do not know what it means to be a Nuncio, who is the personal diplomatic representative of the pope, a role that means you have to distinguish between your own private reactions and your public behavior, especially since in this case, the event was a gala with hundreds of guests.

Of course, he is not perfect. He himself said me he had made many errors. But I can say that he is a man, not a “mezz’uomo, ominicchio, pigliainculo or quacquaracqua”. [Valli uses terms that the Sicilian writer Leonardo Sciascia used and popularized to describe the categories of humanity in modern society, in descending order of ‘honor and trustworthiness’. There is no single-word English translation for any of them.]

Did you never have any concerns about publishing what you came to know?
I had two, first of all. The first was whether such a denunciation would serve a purpose. The second: Was it really necessary for Vigano to call for the pope’s resignation?

The first concern was and is motivated by my awareness that the Church over the centuries has seen many such denunciations, and has always met them with passive resistance – let the storm pass over, without doing anything.

The second concern was and is motivated by a question: Since the pope, even when he errs, remains the Vicar of Christ on earth and the guarantee of Church unity, isn’t it going too far to ask him to step down? And would it not give the impression that Vigano is motivated by personal resentment against the pope?

I must say that they remain of concern to me. But as for the second question, on the basis of what Mons. Vigano has told me, I think he wanted to force the issue in order to underscore that the Church does not belong to the pope, but to Christ. It is also a way of responding to the papolatry that appears widespread today but which has nothing Catholic about it, because the pope is servum servorum Dei (servant of the servants of God), and not their master.

Many in our line of work have said that after they have written something, nothing will ever be the same. But they say the moment that they decide to do so is liberating. Has that happened to you?
Look, I am basically a timid guy. But as you know, sometimes timid people can be very decisive. Thus, after I had prayed avout it and consulted my wife and children, I decided to publish it, and then went on my way with a feeling of great calm. I knew that I would have to pay for it somehow, in different ways, but I never had any hesitations. Not then, and not now, two months since the first Testimony was published.

I have been asked: “Are you sure you have not been used? Nor that you were not also motivated by the desire to have a big journalistic scoop?” Used, I don’t think so. Vigano never forced me to do anything, and he answered all my questions and doubts.

I am reminded of soemething once said by Benny Lai, one of the mentors for us Vaticanistas of today. He said, “A Vatican scoop does not mean to anticipate a news headline. Rather, it is to provide the right reading of a news headline. Today, few are able to understand that.” In that way, I am happy not when I am the one who breaks the news, but when I am able to give my readers a key for understanding the news.

Which is what I try to do with my blog, and also on Riscossa Cristiana, since you have been very kind to re-post ome of my articles. I think that one of the most important tasks of Vaticanistas today is to provide counter-information to the ‘narrative’ that not only the institutional Church but also the major media seek to impose on the public.

I think that whoever writes conscientiously should tell the whole truth without erring by omission. But I am also convinced that this great bureaucratic swamp that the institutional Church has become could eat us all up. Do you think it is possible to initiate a mechanism that would somehow give us hope?
Sincerely, I don’t know. Some days, I harbor some hopes, and on others, I think the swamp will be able to swallow us all and keep us under its black impenetrable waters. But I am greatly encouraged by my readers who thank me and urge me to continue with what I am doing. They, along with my faith, are what truly propel me. Of course, I also get many insults, often terrible, but I realize that such attackers never have any arguments to put up. All they do is brand you (traditionalist, ultra-traditionalist, traitor, etc) without ever presenting any argument worthy of the name.

What do you think as the origin of everything that’s happening in the Church?
It definitely arises from a lack or loss of faith. "I saw God in a man”, said one pilgrim after meeting the Cure of Ars (St Jean Vianney). But today, one cannot take for granted that one can see God in a man of the Church.

“Whoever wants to be a lover of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4,4), we read in the Bible. Yet we see so many pastors who want to be lovers of this world. I would cite the Cure of Ars himself: “We cannot err if we allow ourselves to be led by God, doing what he wishes… The Christian who does the will of God sees to the very end of eternity”.

Today, we have pastors who speak as sociologists, economists, psychologists, and rarely speak of God and eternity. All the problems, up to the most extreme of sexual abuses, arise from this tragic loss of faith.

Where do you think we should start to remedy the situation?
First of all, we must decide to look at reality in the face, no matter how frightening it may be. There are three elements that are quie clear and must be taken into account:
a) The rottenness and moral corruption in the Church are not episodic, but systematic and widespread.
b) The gay lobby plays a decisive role in all this;
c) The silence of so many ‘good people’ who do not speak ‘for the good of the Church’ really contributes to allowing the evil ones to continue to misbehave undisturbed.

On the basis of this awareness, one must begin to rebuild, starting with the figure of the priest and the centrality of the Eucharist. - Everything else must be swept away.
- And pastors must return to being true pastors.
- They must once again be men of God, which means they ought to have the fear of God. Which is what I see in Vigano and in very few others.

Were the strategy and attitude of the Roman Curia in the face of the bomb launched by Vigano what you expected?
Unfortunately, yes. I say unfortunately because it is the wrong attitude. With very rare exceptions, I have not seen a sincere reaction, much less do I see a genuine will for spiritual conversion. They speak of ‘plans of action’, of ‘commissions’, of ‘protocols’, but they do not go to the root: faith in God, intimacy with him, rejecting sin.

The pope himself, by saying that the root of all the evil is clericalism, does not help to face the problem because he is talking of an abstraction. [Which more importantly, is fallacious.] It is like saying in the face of everything bad that is happening in the world, that it is society which is at fault. It doesn’t mean anything.

Then there is this insupportable mantle of silence, of cover-up. They do not seem to understand that in this communications era, such a strategy does not pay. They speak a lot about transparency, but they do not behave with transparency. The ideology of secrecy and subterfuge is not useful at all. It weakens the Churcy because it undermines her credibility.

What fact and consideration do you fear most in all this? And what comforts you?
I cannot say that I am afraid, because I am sure that the Lord, if he sends us a trial, does it for our own good, for the health of our souls.
- What concerns me is the silence of the pastors, their ambiguity, their lack of clarity, the increasingly widespread confusion in the Church and the profound divisions among brothers in the faith.
- I am concerned by the fact that for some time now, I have not been able to trust [men of the Church] , not even the Supreme Pontiff.
- I have seen and heard so much, and so much information comes to me that a culture of suspicion has insinuated itself into me – which I do not like at all. It is as if a certain innocence has been forever lost.
- I am comforted by the prayers and friendship that come to me from so many people who write to express their closeness and affection, and who ask me to go on with what I am doing. Despite the deviancies and infidelity of pastors, the People of God somehow have kept the faith in ways that are really surprising.

If you look at your own history, that of your relationship with the faith and with the Church, what does the present situation teach you?
I realize that now, compared to earlier, even just a few years back, I look much more to what is essential and not pay attention so much to everything else.

What is essential to me is the Word of God, my relationship with Jesus, my faith. Less and less do I allow myself to be conditioned by questions of timing or human respect. I think rather of God’s judgment and eternal life. For these reasons, despite all my personal limitations, I am far more aware of the need to verify whatever comes from the Magisterium to see in what way it confirms me in my faith.

As far as I am concerned, the turning point was after the publication of Amoris laetitia. I already had my doubts but that document brought them out into the open. When I realized that the document is trying to introduce subjectivism into the thinking of the Church and to codify it, I realized the need to intervene somehow.

At that point, the game was not just about human evaluation but about divine law itself. That document attempts tp place man in place of God. And the fact that this attempt is done surreptitiously in AL, through the unerhanded use of a footnote, aggravated the alarm I felt. I saw in this document a real malice (AL has been called by some Amoris furbitia) that does not belong and can never belong in our Mother Church.

More in general, I see a grave danger in this ‘misericordismo’ (ideology of mercy) that is spreading, which detaches pastoral practice from doctrine, ignores the question of divine justice and reduces the faith to a sentimental experience, to an instrument to ‘achieve’ psycho-physical wellbeing, rather than for the salvation of the soul.

I see it leading to a theorization that God has a duty to forgive in the face of a human creature’s presumed right to be forgiven. One no longer talks about conversion and the fear of God. The very idea of sin has been opacified by a relativism that is increasingly evident. I could not be indifferent to all this.

What can be done today by journalists who wish only good for the Church?
To report the news. Believe me, that is not a quip. Too often, we journalists no longer do what we are supposed to do. And I realized this even more in the reportage on Mons. Vigano. Often, it is not because of editorial censorship or other external conditioning, but because of self-censorship. [i.e., a lack of willingness to be an objective reporter with a duty to the truth, but rather being a slave to political correctness and the prevailing thought of the dominant culture].

For a journalist, it is important always to also provide, besides raw information, a context for the information so that the reader can better orient himself. As I said earlier, a journalist’s work is largely one of counter-information against the narrative or worldview tenaciously imposed by the mainstream media. And this means a lot of research and the availability of multiple sources, even on the international level, because we in Italy, since the Vatican is right here, have always tended to be too ‘papist’.

Finally, one must argue one’s case and never fall into the trap of the frontal opposition among the parties to an issue, an opposition fed by insults that eventually make the antagonists incapable of presenting rational arguments.